Too tedious to even try?

[willgamer]

I haven't played in a couple of weeks, but the changes in the river blockade rules have me not want to even play again (as Union).

Even though the number of elements required to block crossing a river is modable, the change from passive to active stance required is not. Hence river blockades must now be tediously rotated.

For deep water fleets there is a setup option to avoid the tedium of rotation that I (and I suspect most players) always use. Now, for rivers, the player is stuck.

Obviously this affects the Union player much more than the Confederate. Too bad that's the side I prefer to play... leure:

Deployment of gunboats to block rivers, a major Union strategy, should be easy, not something only dedicated micromanagers will attempt.

This now adds to the tedium of cycling thru units that should be permenantly sentry'd (as opposed to sentry for the turn with S). A seemingly small UI change to add permenant sentry has been suggested several times; why is it ignored?

My tedium level now exceeds value received... game over. leure:

[Franciscus]

Good points

[Hobbes]

With the number of elements needed now moddable I agree that having to be in active status is probably a bit of a pain (although I think this was something I suggested).

Cheers, Chris

[Pocus]

I guess that for whose having checked the setup option, the need to be on offensive posture can be spared.

For the 2nd point, that's by lack of time only.

[willgamer]

I guess that for whose having checked the setup option, the need to be on offensive posture can be spared.

Now I'm confused (again!).

I'm talking about the need to tediously rotate the river gunboats now that active is required. This, coupled with Sentry coming in only one flavor, thus requiring cycling thru many more units that necesary each turn, is a game killer for me. leure:

The Naval Handling options was just a counter example of how the game provides a way around tedium for deep water.

[AndrewKurtz]

Now I'm confused (again!).

I'm talking about the need to tediously rotate the river gunboats now that active is required. This, coupled with Sentry coming in only one flavor, thus requiring cycling thru many more units that necesary each turn, is a game killer for me. leure:

The Naval Handling options was just a counter example of how the game provides a way around tedium for deep water.

I read Pocus' reply as a possible "fix" is that, if you have selected one of the optional Naval Handling options, Offensive would not be required. If you chose to Micro-manage the deep water, you also micro-manage the brown water.

BTW, I agree totally that it requires too much micro-management. So the option would be nice.

[Jabberwock]

[willgamer]

I read Pocus' reply as a possible "fix" is that, if you have selected one of the optional Naval Handling options, Offensive would not be required. If you chose to Micro-manage the deep water, you also micro-manage the brown water.

Just tried that. Defensive posture does NOT block. leure:

Also, even though I modded to 1, at least 2 gunboat elements were required to block.

I'd like to renew my request to please put the system back to where it was at least until a more detailed treatment of river combat is available. These halfway attempts have unintended consequences, especially for the Union player who doesn't thrive on micromanagement.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[tagwyn]

Poor Pocus!!!!!!!!

[Fern]

Why not a compromise solution... Leave the "full" interdiction rule at 4 ships, remove the "Offensive" posture altogether. Any number of ships less than 4 provides a reduced chance of interdiction... For example...

4 ships = Full interdiction
3 ships = 75% chance of interdiction
2 ships = 50% chance of interdiction
1 ship = 25% chance of interdiction

This simulates the effect of not having enough ships to fully blockade the affected area, and in a way simulates the fact that they are transiting to/from ports/harbors even though they are not really moving... Only by having 4 ships present do you ensure that enough is there at any time to fully interdict the crossing, this way you don't have to require the micromanagement. Just a thought...

I'm not a programmer, but I think it would be a nightmare

Would unit paths be calculated every time you plot them? I so, then I would be able to cancel then replot a path across an interdicted river sector until I got the desired result (= non interdiction).

If the game would remind a stack tried to cross a given river sector then I could broke it in smaller parts, or change the composition, or plot a move trought an adjacent river sector, then cancel it and try to plot through the original one etc.

Perhaps breaking a stack in different parts then try to cross the river with each one until I got a non interdicted crossing rsult then place all other units to the succesful crossing unit stack might work as well as a way to avoid the interdiction .

In short, I am not sure your suggestion might work.

[GShock]

Why not a compromise solution... Leave the "full" interdiction rule at 4 ships, remove the "Offensive" posture altogether.

The problem is that in order to interdict, you must pursue an aggressive stance IRL. You must show everyone trying to cross you that they will be killed and it's not something that requires a defensive or passive stance but a concrete offensive or assault one imo.

The issue comes after the micromanagement involved in the loss of cohesion of the interdicting ships and is understandable but perhaps to interdict a river area even 1 ship (1 element) is enough, provided it is in offensive or assault posture. Then the micromanagement thing is easy when you can see from the log that the unit is low on supplies. When it is, you replace it.

The game is, essentially, all about micromanagement.

[Jabberwock]

Depending on how you define it, when out of port the switch from passive to defensive or offensive stance would be either the few minutes required to go to quarters and load unloaded guns, or the 5-30 minutes required to get up a head of steam. Actual aggressive engagement was an on-the-spot decision left to the local commander.

I don't see how patrolling would cause cohesion loss for a naval asset, as opposed to sitting idle, the biggest problems in the area of cohesion for the navy came from boredom.

[GShock]

Oh i agree Jab, perhaps it's basically only a matter of supplies and not of cohesion with river ships. I wonder if such thing could be done...probably a new command such as gnocohesion=0/1 to be given to the ships, so u'd only have to deal with supplies...but then how to manage sea combat? That's the prob...

I'm sure Pocus will fumble something out of his cilinder once again

[Jabberwock]

Right ... right ... Active patrolling tended to use up coal, so that shore parties would have to gather wood, which could be dangerous (for the shore parties) and less efficient (for the ships). OK, not sure that cohesion is the right way to model it, but not sure that it is the wrong way, either.

[Jabberwock]

Why not a compromise solution... Leave the "full" interdiction rule at 4 ships, remove the "Offensive" posture altogether. Any number of ships less than 4 provides a reduced chance of interdiction... For example...

4 ships = Full interdiction
3 ships = 75% chance of interdiction
2 ships = 50% chance of interdiction
1 ship = 25% chance of interdiction

This simulates the effect of not having enough ships to fully blockade the affected area, and in a way simulates the fact that they are transiting to/from ports/harbors even though they are not really moving... Only by having 4 ships present do you ensure that enough is there at any time to fully interdict the crossing, this way you don't have to require the micromanagement. Just a thought...

It's a good thought, but I think that it would make crossing too easy.

[willgamer]

Why not a compromise solution... Leave the "full" interdiction rule at 4 ships, remove the "Offensive" posture altogether. Any number of ships less than 4 provides a reduced chance of interdiction... For example...

4 ships = Full interdiction
3 ships = 75% chance of interdiction
2 ships = 50% chance of interdiction
1 ship = 25% chance of interdiction

This simulates the effect of not having enough ships to fully blockade the affected area, and in a way simulates the fact that they are transiting to/from ports/harbors even though they are not really moving... Only by having 4 ships present do you ensure that enough is there at any time to fully interdict the crossing, this way you don't have to require the micromanagement. Just a thought...

If this route is taken, I propose going all the way and eliminating gunboats from the map into holding boxes, by theater, ala the deep water system.

IMHO, the best system at the original level of abstraction was the original coding. Trying to tweak it has had unintended consequences.

I believe the way to improve on the original system is to change the level of abstraction either direction. Simplify to boxes, or implement Jabberian detail.

Of course, a "River Handling Option" checkbox at setup would be ideal!

[Jabberwock]

Jabberian detail.

You have a way with words, sir. Did you you invent the term 'congress'?

Seriously, my preception of the Jabberian detail system (or is that Jabberian detail syndrome? - JDS, from now on) is that it would simplify management.

One commander would choose a certain number of ships to assign to a river section. They could proceed there in the default defensive stance. The other commander, wanting to cross the river and have his troops in shape to fight afterwards, might be aware that gunboats were in that area or could be on the way. So he would calculate his odds (generally poor). I don't believe it would be too difficult to give Athena an algorithm that would help her calculate this. The land commander would then either do something to secure a section of the river from gunboats, attempt to drive off the gunboats while crossing (generally foolish), or find somewhere else to cross.

Since

• Field commanders were not assigned facing off with gunboats as their primary mission, but rather as a possible complication to their primary mission
• The situation would usually be unbalanced when these two types of forces squared off
• It is easier to evade a dissimilar force than a similar force

that would certainly explain four years of avoiding direct confrontation.

If the crossing force was small and manueverable, it might evade. If it was large with plenty of artillery and facing a small number of gunboats, then the gunboats might evade. If the gunboats choose to evade, they should have a very high chance of success.

Stance should not matter much in these encounters, although ROI might.

Hopefully, the AI improvements in 1.10b will enable Pocus to look at this as a doable option.

Therefore:

[AndrewKurtz]

Just tried that. Defensive posture does NOT block. leure:

I didn't say it was in the game. I said I thought Pocus threw that out as a possible fix.

I'm not a programmer, but I think it would be a nightmare

I am a programmer and it really sounds relatively simple if I understood the idea. Of course, that's always issue number one for programmers...understanding

It's a good thought, but I think that it would make crossing too easy.

How? Just have 4 ships and you stop it 100% of the time. Isn't that what we have today?

[AndrewKurtz]

I'm not a programmer, but I think it would be a nightmare

I am a programmer and it sounds simple.

[AndrewKurtz]

It's a good thought, but I think that it would make crossing too easy.

How? Just have 4 ships and you stop it 100% of the time. Isn't that what we have today?

[Jabberwock]

How? Just have 4 ships and you stop it 100% of the time. Isn't that what we have today?

There is very little disincentive to attempting a crossing. Unless it is resolved at turn resolution, there is no uncertainty, either you will cross or you won't. If it is resolved at turn resolution, there is still no danger to the crossing force, except that multiple stacks using the same crossing might end up on opposite sides of the river. It allows opposing forces in the same region with no real chance of interaction.

It looks like an improvement, but would it be moddable? Would the engine automatically calculate new percentages if the requirement was 5 ships, or 2 ships? That is a solvable problem, but is it worth the effort? It may be ...

I still prefer uncertainty and deterrence. I think the further invested we get in a system I see as overly abstract and gamey, the harder it will be to get invested in a realistic solution. If deterrence was an option, I'd have absolutely no objection to this being an option as well.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Rafiki]

If this route is taken, I propose going all the way and eliminating gunboats from the map into holding boxes, by theater, ala the deep water system.

I find this idea interesting. I don't know how it might work out in the end, but I would like to see it further explored and discussed

[Jabberwock]

Jabberwock:

Though I agree with most of your ideas, implementing complications that introduce too much micromanagement, just to increase the realism of a small part of the game is not the answer. It might satisfy a few grognards (myself included), but in the end, it will hurt the game itself, due to its lack of larger appeal, therefore, compromises have to be made. Depending on how much trouble it would be for Pocus and company to implement this, if it were too much trouble to allow for variable amounts of ships, the moddable number may or may not have to go. How many people are actually modding the number of ships, and if they are, is it only because of this micro-management issue?

One point I was making is that deterrence will not introduce additional micromanagement. It will reduce micromanagement. The player with ships will send them where he thinks they are needed, without trying to reach some arbitrary number. The player crossing rivers will have a few different choices how to attempt it.

The current system is the one creating micromanagement. It has the variable already for modding the number of ships. Several players have made comments in different threads indicating numbers that they think would be correct for total interdiction. It is not solely due to the micromanagement issue. The impression I'm getting is that the micromanagement issue is caused more by the requirement for aggresive stance, which I see that you are trying to address. I'm personally not interested in modding the number of ships, because it is an arbitrary artificial limit, similar to level 5+ entrenchments for bombardment. I will put up with it, until I decide it's not worth putting up with any longer. I will continue to push for something better, at least as an option, in the meantime. If I see other options suggested that add additional complications to the current system, I probably won't like them.

This may be a small part of the game (debatable), and a very small part of the popular history, but it was not a small part of actual history. Leaving an unrealistic solution as the only option makes it a smaller part of the game, just as we have seen happen with shore bombardment.

Pocus and company generally do an excellent job responding to bugs and game issues. However, when they "corrected" the Iwo Jima system, they overcorrected it, and IMO and that of quite a few others, dropped the ball. Making it moddable and leaving the game broken by default, then adding new rules to cope with the fact that it is broken, is not IMO an adequate solution. That is what we have had for the last year. I do not want to see the same type of thing happen with this issue. I would like to play AGEod's American Civil War by default, not AGEod's Fantasy Gamey War on a map of the US in the 19th Century. The latter could be fun, and I've certainly made suggestions to some modders as to how to go about it, but it is not my primary interest.

I've provided a roadmap as to how AGEod could integrate deterrence into the game with a minimum of effort. I've answered every argument made against it from a programming, gameplay, or historical standpoint, except for "I just think you're wrong". For the foreseeable future, I plan to continue doing this.

[AndrewKurtz]

http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=4283

[GShock]

We here have an advantage with the gunboats that allow true combat that we'd neglect if we pursue the sea-box theory and interdiction surely is an important tactical move. As always, history should prevail and the game should strive to give that base available leaving to the players how to achieve it.

Are we sure that all of the river is actually crossable? The removal of some crossing points would make interdiction a bit easier.

How about increasing the time it takes for troops to build pontoons so that the opponent can spot the stack and move to prevent the crossing (and bomb the guys)? For example, first you move and get to paducah then only next turn you can get to Cairo.

How do we manage the river-port blockades? I.e. river-box mississipi blocks at same time N.O and Memphis?

What is the decreased value of Ft. Donelson and Island 10 ? I.E. how would they bomb the passing blockaders going to the box?

While not excluding the sea-box theory, I'd rather give some importance to river-based transports so that crossing becomes harder (i.e. increase cohesion loss for river crossing if you don't use transports) and reduce the cohesion loss for elements involved in interdiction tasks.

[willgamer]

I didn't say it was in the game. I said I thought Pocus threw that out as a possible fix.

Yeah, I figured that was one possible understanding of what Pocus said. However, my ability to grasp what Pocus says is greatly impaired because I speak only one language, and what's worse, it's American English!

As such I frequently struggle with sentences like "I guess that for whose having checked the setup option, the need to be on offensive posture can be spared." to be enigmatic, cryptic, or ambiguous at best.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Pocus]

I guess that for whose having checked the setup option, the need to be on offensive posture can be spared

hu, I believed that this sentence was correctly constructed


We won't add new box and graphics for the river blocking feature, Gray_Lensman is right.
I think we will remove the need for the offensive posture in the next patch, too much of a chore.
For the rest (25% per boat, I'll see what I can do). It is less simpler to achieve than the on/off test, but doable hopefully.